Oil for WRX autocross

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
In general, oil film thickness and strength increases with viscosity. That's the physics I was referring to, calm down man. Also, how do you know that they recommend thicker oil because they know people buy off the shelf oil that isn't "solid"? Seems like a baseless opinion to me.


Because I only happen to work with the people who have to write those recommendations. How many people here will purchase a "boutique" oil? Few. So going to a thicker viscosity is the only way to achieve protection. Imagine if Ford on their GT350R told their customer well you could run a 30 or a 40 weight but you have to purchase Motul, RL, RLI, Ams, or another nice oil. People would probably sue, and they would counter market their own Motorcraft brand, PR/Legal/Marketing would have a nightmare. It just won't happen.

I've spoken with this extensively with VP's at Cummins. You have to make recommendations based on what 99% of the people can attain, not what's right for their machines.

Also, remember, these OEM's have BIG marketing deals with the oil companies. I'm pretty sure Exxon would have 14 injunctions by morning if they found out Toyota was recommending someone else for the LF-A and so forth.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA.o lighter weights.

Yet you posted this earlier:

Originally Posted By: danielLD
HA! you guys crack me up, this forum I don't like.

Why hang sponsor a site you don't like? Unless of course it is because you believe what you are bringing is so desperately important that despite the people on this site you will put up with them just to bring truth. Is that it?


I don't like this forum because I get 0 notifications so I never see responses, I don't have that much time to get on the computer and browse through every forum.

I actually care about others. Lot's of people mad with me because I've blown out info that should have been included in NDA's but was accidentally left out. I love UOA so do most.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA. I won't get into an argument but here are the basics, Shannow you don't grasp oil, one bit. Viscosity INDEX is NOT viscosity, is an oil's ability to stay in grade, as the temp rises if the oil can't stay in grade, no Bueno.


Please go back and answer each of my questions, or counter the statements that I made with facts...educate me please, if I "don't grasp oil one bit".

Now name the oils that have high VI without VII additives, like I asked.
Where does HTHS fit into the function of protection ?

You appear fixated on "grade", and Kinematic viscosity, which is pretty telling of your capabilities in the field.


For starters, let's touch on Mobil 1. Mobil is highly dependent on it's viscosity and viscosity index improvers. It's base stock is not the greatest but it compensates with solid VIIers. If the base stock has a naturally higher viscosity index, then you're less reliant on the VII's to do the job. It's tough to gauge because you don't have access to those formulas. I have tested formulas for a medium size company out of Ohio(not Renewable Lube) and it is a constant trade off and a juggling act. Amsoil for one does not use VII's in the same way Mobil has to. I guess I should rephrase, they all have VII's, the better question is how much are those oil's dependent on VII's to deliver solid performance.

HTHS fits into the function of protection of course! But here's the issue, if your engine requires X exceeding HTHS gives no more protection and will only lead to more friction the internals need to overcome. Most engines do not have an issue with the oil not protecting, most tracked engines have an issue of high temp, as this temp rises, because the viscosity index is not best, the oil does not remain in grade ,there by lowering the oil's HTHS, and there lies the problem. If the oil can achieve the minimum amount of film thickness required even as the temp rises, then you are solid. However, most off the shelf oil's can not be tracked, they shear like nuts. Take a look at M1EF on the GT-R. By the time it's been driven on the track, it's gone from a 40 weight into almost a 20 weight. Lot's of track guys tell me I'm wrong, but then their UOA's show they've been racing on barely 30 weights borderline 20's. So what do many do? They increase the weight to a 50/60. It's logical, but it's not the best approach. When you're limited to off the shelf oils, it's probably the only thing you can do, but if you have access to more specifically formulated oils, like AMS, RL, Elf, RLI, Motul, JG, etc, then you can really pick something that will work for your engine without having to jump to a higher grade to compensate.

I'm not fixated on grade, it's rather, The trends I have seen on racing engines leaving/ditching high grades in exchange for lower grades with astronomical index's are shocking. Wear goes down as ring seal improves. I've seen lot's of GT-R's leave behind the 60 weight for a 40 weight with huge almost unbelievable improvements. Does this mean HTHS is not calculated into the choice? No, it thoroughly is, but there are more variables than just that. Exceeding HTHS does not offer more protection. It's like getting a 102% in a history class, you still passed with an A.

 

[Garak]

You can subscribe to specific threads, or turn some form of notifications on. Go to the General Board Information section here and post a question. I'm sure someone can help on that. I just tend to read threads that interest me and stick with them, so I don't need notifications. Alternatively, if it's something recent and in a section I'm not normally in and want to check if I got a reply, I check my own post history and go that way. In any case, others I'm sure have much better alternatives than what I suggest.

With respect to engine oil choices, Ford certainly could recommend something other than what they do. There are ACEA specifications they could go off of, or tighten up their own builder approval.

 

[Shannow]

You seem fixated on grades, and appear to have difficulties explaining yourself.

So HOW does a super high viscosity index help an oil stay in grade ?

Shear stability helps it stay in grade, not Viscosity Index.

Given that base-stocks themselves top out at 140(+), then anything above that is polymer enhanced, which tends to drive down "stay in grade" stability.

Bear in mind also, that the HTHS loss is typically about half the KV100 loss in used polymer enhanced oil.

 

[danielLD]

This is from page 168 of the STLE's Certified Lubrication Specialist Handbook

"Viscosity Index/VI: common measure of changes in viscosity with temperature; the higher the VI, the smaller the relative change in viscosity with temperature."

HTHS is not what determine's an oil's ability to stay in grade.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
HTHS is not what determine's an oil's ability to stay in grade.


What's that column on the RHS of J300 ?

It has to meet HTHS minimums to BE in grade...the fact that you guys don't test for it in used oils, and rely on the KV values, which with multigrades were proven to not represent component wear back in the 80s doesn't mean that you SHOULDN'T tests for it when doing an analysis...nor that you should dismiss it just because you don't get it...

Yes, the definition of viscosity index is what you say...but how does a high VI enable it to stay in grade ?

When the very components that give the ultra high VI are the components that (can) lead it to shear out of grade.

Yes, high VI is good...very good...unless it comes at the expense of shear stability, and stupid things like M1 racing 0W50 that only has the HTHS of a C3 5W30.

teach me...and not with random one liners from the STLE...there were plenty of other points in my posts that need specific education...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
HTHS is not what determine's an oil's ability to stay in grade.


But you are saying VI IS ???

 

[zeng]

Please educate us, for a third attempt ......

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: danielLD
zeng, you don't have to buy my claims, they're free and not for sale! Lol.
KL31, sure I'm new here and I get 0 notifications of people replying to me, I'm very confused if someone could help me.
Shannon, I'll post data. Not everyone in the business artificially inflates their VI with VII.


Fair enough.
For the sake of learning in the community, kindly provide individual response to my comments above arising from your numerous claims.
Awaiting 48 hours since .....


Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: danielLD
A 40 is only going to cause friction and more needless wear.

Please educate us on the bold....... vis-a-vis an xW30.

Btw, what is wear ?


Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Big improvements in what, exactly?

Wear values, particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead.....

I just don't buy your claims.
Kindly provide basis on above 'claims' that a lower viscosity grade in xW30 provides (particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead) wear improvements over a 40 grade .
Keeping aside providence of evidence or links/papers for now.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
...Reduction in fuels dilutions and acid formation....

Kindly elaborate mechanisms of how a xW30 viscosity grade is superior in reduction of fuels dilutions and acid formation, than a 40 grade ......
hence improving wear values as claimed.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The copper and lead reductions were from controlling the fuels dilutions,

How so an xW30 is superior to a 40 in this 'fuels dilution control' .... and how does this 'control' leads to wear values improvements ??

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The nickel/aluminum/iron reductions were from better lubrication in the EP area.

In relation to a 40 viscosity grade , how does a xW30 provide better lubrication in the EP area?
What's the mechanisms of this 'better lubrication' by a xW30 viscosity grade that can lead to nickel/aluminium/iron wear reductions in OP's case?
By EP, you mean Extreme Pressure ?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I don't like this forum because I get 0 notifications so I never see responses, I don't have that much time to get on the computer and browse through every forum.

I actually care about others. Lot's of people mad with me because I've blown out info that should have been included in NDA's but was accidentally left out. I love UOA so do most.

Ahha I see. Well thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't see how you wouldn't like "us" here on the board.

And thanks for blowing out info that should have been under an NDA but was accidentally left out. Wouldn't want you taking any kind of professional risk re: your career.

I mean, if "Lot's" of people are already mad with you.

 

[danielLD]

I've received cease and desist letters from Mobil and Shell before, even though I'm a Shell fan. I'm not in the UOA portion of the oil business anymore, don't care too. It's a paranoid sue at all costs industry. People don't share info, etc. It's draining. Wanted to post a video of the lab once, had a bunch of people screaming I was a traitor because another lab could see how our lab was setup, LOL, what a joke.

Shannow, I'll just let it rest. I try to come on forums but I've had bad habits of staying on forums too, lol. If what you say is true, then it goes counter to what I've been able to prove with UOA. What others like Scott Kegarise and Terry Dyson, strangely have proven to be true as well.

I'm trying to work on a website like PQIA where UOA's can be entered with even more specifics, i.e. fuel used, octane, air filter, oil filter, etc, which is really what I'm trying to devote my time to.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I've received cease and desist letters from Mobil and Shell before, even though I'm a Shell fan. I'm not in the UOA portion of the oil business anymore, don't care too. It's a paranoid sue at all costs industry. People don't share info, etc. It's draining.

Oh, so what are you going to be a site sponsor for then?

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I've received cease and desist letters from Mobil and Shell before, even though I'm a Shell fan. I'm not in the UOA portion of the oil business anymore, don't care too. It's a paranoid sue at all costs industry. People don't share info, etc. It's draining.

Oh, so what are you going to be a site sponsor for then?


Well I'm trying to build a site that is similar to PQIA but for UOA versus virgin samples. And it would be highly detailed. Not sure if that qualifies as sponsorship maybe a community project rather?

 

[oil_film_movies]

danielLD, I see what you're saying. I'm not sure why some on this forum love to argue, but you've encountered the grumpy ones.

Basically, extreme high temperature, high shear conditions do favor polyol ester base stock oils (blended with PAO), and the more VII chemicals you have to use to prop up the base oil, the more mechanical shearing can destroy high temperature performance.

Good noting that manufacturer's recommendations do account for the type of oil readily available, and very often recommend higher new-oil viscosities since anticipated usage will gradually break apart the VII's, resulting in some thinner (hot) oil toward the end of an oil change interval.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
In general, oil film thickness and strength increases with viscosity. That's the physics I was referring to, calm down man. Also, how do you know that they recommend thicker oil because they know people buy off the shelf oil that isn't "solid"? Seems like a baseless opinion to me.


Because I only happen to work with the people who have to write those recommendations. How many people here will purchase a "boutique" oil? Few. So going to a thicker viscosity is the only way to achieve protection. Imagine if Ford on their GT350R told their customer well you could run a 30 or a 40 weight but you have to purchase Motul, RL, RLI, Ams, or another nice oil. People would probably sue, and they would counter market their own Motorcraft brand, PR/Legal/Marketing would have a nightmare. It just won't happen.

I've spoken with this extensively with VP's at Cummins. You have to make recommendations based on what 99% of the people can attain, not what's right for their machines.

Also, remember, these OEM's have BIG marketing deals with the oil companies. I'm pretty sure Exxon would have 14 injunctions by morning if they found out Toyota was recommending someone else for the LF-A and so forth.


Fair enough, but you just proved my point that protection increases with viscosity. Sure there are 30 grades that can protect like a 40 grade, but in general, film strength/thickness increase with viscosity.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
danielLD, I see what you're saying. I'm not sure why some on this forum love to argue, but you've encountered the grumpy ones.


No, he's made statements that he's unwilling to back.

Told me that I know nothing about oil, but failed to answer any of my questions with anything other than "I know UOA", and reference to NDAs.

He could just answer some of the questions...many of which he himself has raised.

Of course OEMs spec an engine oil that's going to be functional at the end of the OCI, under every likely secanario, and of course, when you know your personal operating conditions, you can fine tune your own choice...nothing earth shattering there.

Now back to how high VI helps an oil stay in grade, and how 160+ VIs (or the amazing ones that have been mentioned) do this without polymers...note, these were points that were raised by danialLD...I didn't introduce them, I asked for clarification.

 

[danielLD]

Fair enough, but you just proved my point that protection increases with viscosity. Sure there are 30 grades that can protect like a 40 grade, but in general, film strength/thickness increase with viscosity.[/quote]

Sure, that is entirely true no doubt. My original point is when selecting an oil with a high VI, you don't need to resort to thicker oils. Now when off the shelf oil is the only avail, then it's thicker oil.

Shannow, sorry, I'm a jerk at times. Renewable for one has a base stock with VI's in the 200's. While most as you mentioned, are in the 140~ range. Renewable has an entire thing you can read and go over. If you really want the guts, call them up and they'll gladly talk all day about their base stocks superiority to others. Motul is another with an exceptional base.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Shannow, sorry, I'm a jerk at times. Renewable for one has a base stock with VI's in the 200's. While most as you mentioned, are in the 140~ range. Renewable has an entire thing you can read and go over. If you really want the guts, call them up and they'll gladly talk all day about their base stocks superiority to others. Motul is another with an exceptional base.


Cool, thankyou for that.

I can't a afford a long phonecall, as Australia is a bit far away, and I can't buy their stuff...Motul is scarce, but I get it when I can.

Thanks.

 

[Shannow]

And Terry didn't get banned for talking of RLI...the threads on audis and fuel dilution were great and informative.

There was a disagreement, quite in the open about how one particular major sponsor was being treated in the moderation game...he wouldn't go quietly, so was gone.

 

[stevo585]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Originally Posted By: KL31
And whoever said the 0W30 is better because the 0W40 is too thick for their tight clearances, is probably drunk or misinformed, or both.

Not to mention that there's not a whole lot of difference in viscosity between Castrol 0W30 and 0W40 at operating temp. and I see that the OP has already discovered that.

There's a LOT of misinformation out there about oil choice for Subaru's and some of it comes from builders. When builders first started working on the BRZ, a lot of "well respected builders" proclaimed anything thicker than 0W20 was too thick because the of the tight bearing clearances. Meanwhile, Subaru Japan allows 5W40 in all turbos, the H6, and even the BRZ



Yes the bearing clearances thing is [censored]. One thing that is not, heard from my tuner, who is 1k cars deep tuning FA20s is that the VVT tends to have issues on 40wt in mild climates, summer is fine generally he recommends to stick with a 30wt and oil cooling if track driving.